by Shimon Stein
Against the background of the EU’s internal and external crises, and with only limited internal European consensus regarding issues of foreign policy, at least on the strategic level, prominent in this context is the consensus regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This latter consensus, which is broader than what elements within the Israeli political system would like to believe, is based on the all-encompassing European support of international law as a guiding principle in international relations. This principle constitutes the lowest common denominator unifying all member states, and is the basis for the sweeping opposition against the Israeli occupation and Israel’s settlements policy in the West Bank, which are regarded as issues on which EU members can demonstrate broad agreement. Every concession on these fundamental issues will eat away at what still remains of the European consensus.
The
two visits to Israel and the Palestinian Authority by Federica
Mogherini since she was appointed High Representative for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union in November 2014 were
designed to reflect her view of the importance and urgency of the
Israeli-Palestinian issue and her intention to be involved in efforts to
renew the dialogue between the two parties. These actions may appear to
indicate business as usual within the EU, but these are not usual
times. The European Union is currently facing a systemic crisis that
threatens its very future. At the same time, the EU is contending with
crises with its neighbors to the south and to the east. These challenges
raise doubts regarding Mogherini’s ability to project the authority
necessary to contend with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as
other issues relevant to the stability and security of Europe. Indeed,
one may ask, what union does she actually represent?
 |
| German Chancellor Merkel (r) speaks with German Finance Minister Schaeuble before addressing the members of parliament ahead of an EU summit, Berlin, June 18, 2015. John MacDougall / AFP |
The drama of the refugees and asylum seekers
underway for months off the southern shores of the European Union has
not deflected attention from the drama currently unfolding around the
relationship between Greece and the euro bloc. Ever since the rise to
power of the Syriza party (an anti-establishment coalition composed of a
mixture of groups from the moderate to the Marxist-Leninist left wing),
the confrontation between Greece and EU institutions has assumed an
ideological dimension that has made it more difficult a to reach
pragmatic solution to the crisis. Both sides are entrenched in in their
positions: Greece rejects the approach dictated by Germany, which in
return for provision of financial aid requires Greece to implement a
series of socioeconomic reforms. The Greek government, which was voted
into power based on promises to improve the position of the middle class
and the weaker segments of society, which has declined in recent years,
rejects demands that it continue pension reductions and reforms in the
labor market and raise the value added tax. The general feeling among
European government officials is that the Greek prime minister and
finance minister have acted in arrogant and amateur fashion, and this
has contributed to the deepening crisis.
Crises have, on occasion, been known
to create leaders. However, the leadership landscape in the European
Union remains fairly barren. Prominent against this background has been
Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose authority stems from the fact that
Germany is a politically stable and economically thriving power.
Nonetheless, Germany’s effort to “Germanize” the European Union has
sparked considerable resistance on the part of some EU member states.
For her part, Merkel has attempted to dull these feelings through
cooperation with France, though France’s political and economic weakness
has only highlighted Germany’s relative power. Chancellor Merkel, who
has spearheaded the efforts to address the crisis alongside French
President François Hollande, has made it clear that if the euro bloc
fails, Europe fails. These and other similarly minded remarks leave no
doubts regarding her desire to prevent Greece from leaving the euro
bloc, despite the increasing criticism of Merkel by members of her party
(and other political elements within euro bloc countries), who are
reluctant to provide yet more assistance to a country that they perceive
as a bottomless pit.
As of this writing, it is unclear
whether the parties will succeed in reaching a compromise that will
prevent Greece from bankruptcy and simultaneously enable it to remain in
the euro bloc. Uncertainties also exist regarding the implications of a
Greek desertion from the bloc for both the future of the euro bloc and
the European Union, as well as the economic and financial implications
on the European and global level (prevalent views hold that the shock
caused by a Greek desertion from the euro bloc would not be as intense
as that caused by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers). In any event,
before the EU is able to finish processing the results of the Greek
crisis, it will be faced with a “British crisis,” stemming from the
referendum scheduled for 2017 in Britain regarding its continued
membership in the European Union. Until then British Prime Minister
David Cameron is determined to conduct negotiations that will encounter
the opposition of a large number of EU members, who are unwilling to
allow Britain any additional leeway, as in the case, for example, of the
free movement of EU citizens, which would eat away at the principles of
the Union.
The economic-financial crisis has not
only exposed the birth defects of the euro bloc (which was supposed to
lead to fiscal economic union and, ultimately, political union); it has
also exposed the economic asymmetry between its economically
well-established northern members and its southern members, whose
economic weakness (lack of growth, heavy deficits, high unemployment
rates, and lack of competition) has intensified. Even if countries such
as Spain and Portugal attempt to extricate themselves from the crisis,
and Italy and France continue to stay afloat economically, this
asymmetry has the long term potential to threaten the future of the
Union in its current form. Proposals to consider an expansion of
solidarity through partnership in the debts, made against the background
of the Greek crisis, have been rejected outright by Germany. Instead of
the crisis serving as a catalyst for intensified integration, it has
opened a Pandora’s box that has generated renationalization and rising
doubt regarding EU institutions in general and the European Commission
in particular, and the drive to reduce Brussel’s influence on policy as
much as possible. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has articulated this
by advocating the position of “European where necessary, national where
possible,” and David Cameron has worked to remove from the agenda the
goal of an “ever closer Union,” which is a principle rooted in the
treaties on European Union. Also relevant has been the rise of populist
parties bearing messages of xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism, as
well as the crumbling of political systems, in particular in Spain,
Italy, and Greece. The most recent elections for the European parliament
were characterized by high rates of non-participation, reflecting
citizens’ lack of confidence in the political systems’ ability to find a
solution to the problems they currently face.
These phenomena raise the question of
whether European integration will rise and fall on the issue of economic
prosperity – that is to say, whether the absence of prosperity and
welfare will result in a national reflex, not to mention a nationalist
one. After all, in addition to being a socioeconomic model, the EU has
prided itself in being an ethical community. However, a challenge to
this model has been advanced, for example, by Hungarian Prime Minister
Viktor Orban, who has challenged the liberal model of the EU and regards
Vladimir Putin as a paragon of leadership. The EU’s manner of dealing
with refugees and asylum seekers, which has a moral and ethical
dimension as well, likewise does not reflect favorably on the Union.
The helplessness of the European Union
has been visibly reflected in its foreign policy with regard to crises
in neighboring countries to the east and the south. EU institutions are
currently supposed to be concluding an updated situation assessment
regarding the neighborhood policy, to serve as a basis for updated
strategy in the region in light of the upheaval that has plagued the
region in recent years. However, the EU presumably lacks the necessary
resources to help stabilize the region and will continue to lack them
for the foreseeable future. The EU is also hard pressed to formulate a
response to the wave of refugees and political asylum seekers from the
Mediterranean region and Africa. In an effort to curb this migration
(which at times has ended in refugees drowning in the Mediterranean
Sea), Mogherini launched a multi-level initiative, although it is
doubtful it will succeed in deterring the migrants. Ostensibly the EU is
supposed to address the issues that have caused many to abandon their
homelands, but this is a hopeless effort. Moreover, most EU countries
are also not willing to help Italy, France, Sweden, Germany, and
Hungary, which have been forced to bear the brunt of the burden involved
with absorbing the refugees.
The EU’s helplessness has also been
visible in its dealings with the countries to the east, whose chances of
joining its ranks are slim. Due to the regional and global
implications, a significant challenge to the Union is posed by Putin,
following Russia’s the annexation of Crimea and its involvement in
undermining the stability in Eastern Ukraine and the post-Cold War
European order in general. In the absence of a military option, EU
members are hoping that the sanctions imposed will prompt Russia to
change its policy, but such hopes currently appear groundless. At the
same time, voices are rising in Italy, Greece, Hungary, and Slovakia
against the sanctions. In this instance as well, Merkel’s leadership in
contending with the crisis (for which she has also recruited the
president of France), once again reflects that when national
implications are at stake – and in this case it is a matter of
German-Russian relations – the states themselves assume the burden of
handling the situation, whereas the Union, at the most, remains only in
the background. In this sense, the dynamic sidelines Mogherini; this was
also the fate of Mogherini’s predecessor, Catherine Ashton.
Against the background of the EU’s
internal and external crises, and with only limited internal European
consensus regarding issues of foreign policy, at least on the strategic
level, prominent in this context is the consensus regarding the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This latter consensus, which is broader
than what some elements within the Israeli political system would like
to believe, is based on the all-encompassing European support of
international law as a guiding principle in international relations.
This principle constitutes the lowest common denominator unifying all
member states, and is the basis for the sweeping opposition against the
Israeli occupation and Israel’s settlements policy in the West Bank,
which are regarded as issues on which EU members can demonstrate broad
agreement. Every concession on these fundamental issues will eat away at
what still remains of the European consensus. For this reason, the
Israeli government’s current policy will continue to constitute an
insurmountable point of contention with the European Union. Israeli
claims regarding a decline in the centrality of the conflict in light of
the Middle East’s current vicissitudes and the need to contend with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the regional context have fallen on
deaf ears.
Evidence that the EU has no intention
of letting this issue lie can be found in the initiative, which is
currently gaining momentum, to move beyond declarations and begin taking
action that will reflect its position on the illegality of Israeli
policy in the territories. In the absence of an EU strategy regarding
how to extricate the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations from the its
current deadlock, France has taken the initiative and announced its
intention to work for the passage of a UN Security Council draft
decision calling for the immediate resumption of negotiations, setting a
timetable for reaching a final status agreement, and stipulating that
if this does not occur, it will recognize a Palestinian state. It is
difficult to estimate the initiative’s prospects of success and the
chances of its becoming EU policy, even if many of the member states
demand it. Nonetheless, it is clear that the lack of consensus will
continue to tie the hands of Mogherini, who will likely continue her
efforts to involve the Union in an effort to actualize a two-state
solution.
Shimon Stein
Source: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=9916
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment